• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

amd mobile 1500+... where'd the 33mhz go?

S

Sid03

Senior member
let me start with the fact that i despise amd's pr rating system. i think they make great chips, but the pr rating does nothing but deceive the average consumer, imho. and don't give me "educating the consumer". looking around the compaq laptop website (or best buy, etc...), I see no "educating" going on.

today i read that amd released an athlon4 1500+ for laptops. but this chip actually runs at 1300mhz.

but if you look at their xp linup, the 1500+ actually runs at 1333mhz. if that was the standard, why can amd arbitrarily come up with adding to the pr rating? it's the same palomino core, right?

are they going to go back and rename their 1000-1200 mobile cpu's with the new rating?

it appears they are committed to this farce. at least they could be consistant with it.

(before the flaming commences, let me point out that i own a 1.4ghz athlon, and i'm very happy with it. but i won't be purchasing or recommending any more amd products until they quit deceiving the consumers.)
 
I agree.

Really, what was wrong with calling it an AMD Athlon XP 1.6ghz? Why call it a 1800+ or whatever. If you call it an 1800+, it should at least be 1.8ghz (for some consistency and relation between the product number and the processing power).

Bad call.

(note: I, too, own 2 AMD systems, and am glad I bought AMD, but this recent move concerns me also.)
 
not only that...

if i'm not mistaken, the athlon4 runs on a 200mhz fsb instead of the xp's 266mhz fsb. so shouldn't it have an even lower rating???

maybe apple should rename their new 1000mhz g4 and call it a g4 2500. i guess there's no standard (or precedent) of how this scam works, so why not???
 


<< not only that...

if i'm not mistaken, the athlon4 runs on a 200mhz fsb instead of the xp's 266mhz fsb. so shouldn't it have an even lower rating???

maybe apple should rename their new 1000mhz g4 and call it a g4 2500. i guess there's no standard (or precedent) of how this scam works, so why not??? >>



they would if apple used a PR rating system.....
 
if i'm not mistaken, the athlon4 runs on a 200mhz fsb instead of the xp's 266mhz fsb
ok guapo... where'd the 33mhz go?

Look at your two above statements. #1 answers #2. Clock is a function of bus times multiplier. The Athlon XP 1500+ is at 133mhz fsb * 10 multiplier. The Athlon 4 1300mhz is at 13 multiplier * 100 fsb.

In addition, the XP1500+ rating is fine, since the XP @ 1.33ghz whoops the P4 1.5 very badly. Remember T-bird 1.33 benches showing it on par with P4 1.7?
 
Which is faster:

10x133=1330mhz -or- 13x100=1300mhz

obviously the 10x133 would be significantly faster... yet they get the same "pr". the inconsistancy doesn't bother anyone else? is amd just pulling pr numbers out their ***?
 


<< Which is faster:

10x133=1330mhz -or- 13x100=1300mhz

obviously the 10x133 would be significantly faster... yet they get the same "pr". the inconsistancy doesn't bother anyone else? is amd just pulling pr numbers out their ***? >>



What is your definition of "significantly faster"?


Toms Hardware 100/133FSB
 
Dont forget the athlon 4 is against the mobile pentiums - which will use sdram knocking performance quite a bit
 
there isnt a huge difference between the two. You are talking about 33 mhz. has it is the Pr rating is conservative.
 
it really stuns me that you guys don't have a problem with amd making up their own rules as they go along. they shouldn't even call it a performance rating... it's just some arbitrary number that the marketing dept comes up with.

in their descriptions, they make it sound like it's carefully calculated. when in fact, they just seem to pick whatever number that their competition's mhz is going to be.

 
I wouldn't say that AMD is simply "picking a number". They've had quite a bit of verification through third parties, and if anything, the PR ratings are conservative...even without the additional 33Mhz and faster bus the mobile XP 1500+ is comparable to a mobile P4 1500Mhz on SDRAM (once it comes out). I'm not sure I entirely believe AMD's marketing when they say their ratings are based on older Athlons...I'm pretty sure they target the P4 speed ranges.

The bottom line here is that after the PIII and K6-X series, AMD and Intel went separate routes with their chips. Intel went with high megahertz (which is easy to sell) while AMD went with higher IPC, which most people have no clue about. People erroneously believe that processor speed is what defines performance. Making people aware of this fact strikes me as being many things, deceiving is not one of them though...
 
but they are just picking numbers. they gave both the 1330mhz xp and the 1300 a4 the same performance rating. it's obvious they won't perform the same, yet amd decided they deserve the same rating. how can that be? amd is picking a number for their cpu's with no regard to consistancy or accuracy. it's 100% marketing, 0% accurate.

so amd lied about how they came up with this scheme... and that's ok with you?

but lets just say that it is aimed to be a "rating" vs the comparable mhz p4... how does amd know that the way i use their 1666mhz desktop will give me comparable performance to a 2000mhz p4? if my primary uses are q3 (gaming), ejay (to decode audio), gomotion (video decoding), naturally speaking (voice recognition), videostudio (mpeg), etc... then the amd rating is a complete sham.




<< People erroneously believe that processor speed is what defines performance. Making people aware of this fact strikes me as being many things, deceiving is not one of them though... >>

if they had no intent on deception, they'd clearly mark the true mhz of the cpu. but they don't. when i go into best buy and look at an athlonxp 1666mhz system, it says "2000+" with no explanation whatsoever of how they came up with that number. there's no attempt at "making people aware" of anything. if this isn't deception, i don't know what is.
 


<< so amd lied about how they came up with this scheme... and that's ok with you? >>


Just chill.
Its around a 2.5% difference in clock speed, and that is negligible. What were they going to do, name it the athlon4 1462+ ????

All that matters is whether amd is misleading customers IN relation to the other companies clock speed in laptops, and since an Athlon 4 1500+ will easily equal, if not dominate a P4 1500 in industry accepted benchmarks, then their is NO harm done, and AMD is morally correct, which leaves your argument of misleading customers dead in the water, IMO.
 
what i meant about them lieing, is that they tout the pr rating as being compared to their tbird. which isn't true at all.

and exactly what basis are you using for the athlon 1300mhz "wiping the floor" with a p4 1500mhz?

are you telling me that if i had a 1500mhz p4 and you had a 1300mhz athlon xp, that you could rip an mp3, decode voice recognition, play q3, encode mpeg, ... all significantly faster?

i think if the p4 owner were to choose the applications to do said tasks, the p4 would "wipe the floor" with the athlon.

that being the case, how can amd just declare that their cpu's deserve a higher rating than their mhz.


i completely agree that mhz isn't everything... however coming up with your own rating scheme (based on no actual formula or consistancy) is definitely the wrong answer.

if amd were to lay out a definite formula and be consistant with it, then i wouldn't have such a problem with it. but they make up the rules, and apparantly change them as they go along. that's simply not right, not fair (for the consumer), and definitely not honest.
 


<< All that matters is whether amd is misleading customers IN relation to the other companies clock speed in laptops >>

if that's the case, then amd is WAY off base. intel doesn't have a p4 laptop chip yet, so amd would be comparing their athlon4 to intel's tualatin. and there's no way that an amd 1300mhz is comparable to a tualatin 1500mhz (especially since the tualatin has 512k cache.)

that's utterly ridiculous!
 
Yes... an XP 1500+ is faster than a P4 1500

Anand's XP Review

Notice that the P4 @ 1500MHz is at the bottom. I wouldn't expect the A4 1500+ to be too far behind the desktop model... but then again there are no bechmarks yet for the new A4.

BTW, did you even look at the other link I provided you for 100 and 133 FSB speeds?
 


<< if that's the case, then amd is WAY off base. intel doesn't have a p4 laptop chip yet, so amd would be comparing their athlon4 to intel's tualatin. and there's no way that an amd 1300mhz is comparable to a tualatin 1500mhz (especially since the tualatin has 512k cache.) >>


Its odvious your desparate, your argument is bunk when you attack semantics.
I was speaking to the fact that amd is positioning the athlon 4 1500+ against the p4 1500. If the tualatin would scale to 1500, i am POSITIVE amd would not release a chip with a AR rating on it, but since the next generation of chips from intel (which is the next mobile offering by intel), offer a lower IPC than the previos generation, AMD must position itself by readjusting its 'advertised' clockspeed.
 
but look at the choice of software that AT chooses. looking at xbitlabs review, you can see how much of a difference choosing the right application makes.

so how can amd say their 1666mhz is as fast as intel's 2000mhz, when clearly it's not (depending on the application)?

how can they say that my brother will get the same performance? how can people accept this scam?


again, i'm not bashing amd's products... the palomino is a great chip. but the deceptive marketing is ridiculous.
 
Sid03, you're comparing a desktop PR rating (1500+) to a notebook PR rating (1500+). They're NOT the same thing at all buddy.

If Pentium 4 notebooks are released with SDRAM support, AMD should take their 1.3GHz Athlon 4 and call it a 2000+! You must realize that regular old PC133 SDRAM = crap for the Pentium 4; it starves the living bandwidth out of it.

However, if Pentium 4 notebooks come out with RDRAM support, then it is likely that AMD's PR rating is conservative by having the 1.3GHz Athlon 4 being rated a 1500+.

In any case, how do you know AMD is "just picking random numbers"? Really now, is it so hard to believe that AMD might have gotten a hold of a Pentium 4 notebook in their test labs, benchmarked it against their Athlon 4 notebook, and then decided to call their 1.3GHz Athlon 4 a 1500+ based on those comprehensive tests. You and I won't really know how AMD came to decide their notebook PR ratings until they release benchmarks on their website indicating so (like they're already done with their desktop PR rating system).

Please take off the MHz blind fold Sid03, the world is changing. 🙂
 


<< If the tualatin would scale to 1500, i am POSITIVE amd would not release a chip with a AR rating on it >>

for laptops... intel is going to release a 1300mhz tualatin. amd is going to release a 1300mhz athlon4.

you are saying it's ok to "rate" the athlon a 1500+???


i have no blindfold on. the people that just accept marketing like this, are turning their heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top